Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: Decision no. 1207/2016
    • Member State: Romania
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Court decision in appeal
    • Decision date: 29/02/2016
    • Court: Bucharest Tribunal
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: Unknown
    • Defendant: National Agency for Fiscal Administration
    • Keywords: advertisement, comparative advertising
  • Directive Articles
    Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4 Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4, (a) Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4, (d) Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4, (f)
  • Headnote
    An advertising containing a direct reference to another advertising already used by a competitor constitutes comparative advertising.
  • Facts
    The plaintiff conducted a promotion using the following advertising "Some boast the price revolution, we boast the fair price resolution". At the same time, a well-known competitor already promoted its products by using the advertising phrase "Price revolution", which was also registered as a trademark.

    The competent body (the defendant) stated that the deed represents an infringement of letters a, d and f of article 6 of Law no. 158/2008 and, therefore, sanctioned the plaintiff for the commitment of three misdemeanours.

    The plaintiff submitted a court action against the defendant requesting the annulment of the minutes ascertaining the misdemeanours.
  • Legal issue
    The court stated that the advertising is comparative in accordance with the relevant legal provision. However, a deed infringing several letters provided by art. 6 of Law no. 158/2008 triggers the application of only one sanction.
  • Decision

    Does an advertisement containing a direct reference to another advertising already used by a competitor constitute comparative advertising?

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The court admitted the action in part.